Why systemizers aren’t “people” people

tl;dr- You only have one white matter network for systemizing, and you can spend the whole thing on systems of “signaling”-style communication. Most people spend most of their white matter on this task because their reproductive strategy is R-selected, intratribal competition.

White matter networks are formal reasoning systems, much like any old computer. This is useful for any sort of systemizing behavior, of which socializing is only one very demanding example. Most people use these giant supercomputers for signaling and empathizing perceived signals, this being the primary language (and economic interest) of intimate primate social groups.

“Socialization” means the absorption of and conformity to extraordinarily complex systems of small behaviorisms for signaling personal, subgroup, and supergroup identities, as I’ve said about a billion times now. If you identify as a metalhead, you signal this by wearing a band shirt and throwing up the horns (saying “I listen to metal” is actually less credible). Or, more to the point:

Bah, you have all these rules.

It’s like an entire fucking dictionary that you’re supposed to know by heart, but it’s not written down anywhere and every word means the opposite of what people say it does when you ask them about it.

-Comment I left somewhere

The deception bit (know the truth, say the opposite) arises from intra-group competition in R-selection. The “dictionary” bit arises from a very small number of real principles that aren’t available to some minds, so it’s like memorizing multiplication tables for 3 or 4 digits instead of learning how to calculate new products as the situation demands.

But for one reason or another, some people do not purpose their supercomputers to this task. This means they still have the urge to systemize and lots of surplus horsepower for systemizing tasks. In the case of Amud neanderthals, this arises from the simple belief that “my tribe is all humans” and their ready adoption of Kant’s categorical imperative to govern their own intratribal behavior. Now that Amud Kant has determined a way of divining the correct answer in all possible social situations, he turns his supercomputer in the direction of some other task. (Nevermind that his formalization is incorrect- he’s never left Mom’s basement, much less visited Africa, and has no reason to believe all minds are not more or less like his own and merely more lazy or materialistic.)

Some other people simply don’t process much in the way of social input. After a while, they decide the whole “socializing” business is inscrutable magic and they flee to systems they can understand like D&D, computers, MBTI, and the DSM. Fuck the DSM-V, by the way, and all of its disciples. Purposefully obfuscating the truth (again with knowing the truth and saying the opposite), no question about it, and thereby causing a lot of people a lot of unnecessary pain. I take comfort in the certainty that the authors will burn in hell, as will many of their apostate brethren.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Why systemizers aren’t “people” people

  1. Aeoli Pera says:

    >Not only that. Your average rube can google it and be an armchair psychologist, and cause a lot of damage.

    Ha! Careful, that might hit too close to home.

  2. Pingback: Behaviorisms and laundry (list) day | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s